Sex differences in jealousy: The recall of cues to sexual and emotional infidelity in personally more and less threatening context conditions

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.03.006Get rights and content

Abstract

We tested the prediction derived from the evolutionary view of jealousy that men preferentially recall cues to sexual infidelity, whereas women preferentially recall cues to emotional infidelity. This preferential recall was predicted to be more pronounced in a personally more threatening than in a personally less threatening context condition. In the personally less threatening context condition, the participants listened to a story about an anonymous couple spending an evening together; in the personally more threatening context condition, the same story referred to one's own romantic relationship. Integrated in this story were five ambiguous cues each to sexual and emotional infidelity. As predicted, in a surprise recall test, men preferentially recalled cues to sexual infidelity, whereas women preferentially recalled cues to emotional infidelity. This preferential recall was significant for both men and women only in the personally more threatening context condition.

Introduction

A central assumption of evolutionary psychological research is that the fundamental building blocks of the mind are domain- and content-specific information-processing mechanisms (e.g., Buss, 1999, Cosmides & Tooby, 1994). These specialized mechanisms have evolved because they solved specific recurrent problems of individual survival or reproduction. Domain specificity means that the mechanisms are activated and employed only in those contexts or situations (domains) signaling the presence of the adaptive problem they evolved to solve. Moreover, a content-specific mechanism is assumed to preferentially (i.e., rapidly, reliably, and efficiently) process only those classes of information that are relevant for the solution of the specific problem.

Infidelity in sexual relationships is an essential problem of individual reproduction (Cosmides & Tooby, 1994) and the jealousy mechanism (JM) is a plausible psychological adaptation to it. Thus, the domain of the JM is a sexual relationship in which a mate's infidelity might threaten one's own reproductive success. To solve this adaptive problem, the JM is assumed to preferentially process (e.g., attend, encode, store, and retrieve) information indicating a mate's (potential) infidelity.

Men and women's JMs may differ in the nature of information they preferentially process because men and women's reproductive success has been recurrently threatened by different types of infidelity Buss et al., 1992, Daly et al., 1982, Symons, 1979. Specifically, a woman's sexual infidelity deprives her mate of a reproductive opportunity and may burden him with years of investment in a genetically unrelated child. In contrast, a man's infidelity does not burden his mate with unrelated children, but it may divert resources away from his mate's progeny. This resource threat may be signaled by his level of emotional attachment to the other female. As a consequence, men's JM is hypothesized to preferentially process information about a mate's sexual infidelity, whereas women's JM is hypothesized to preferentially process information about a mate's emotional infidelity.

The evolutionary view of a sex-specific JM spawned an impressive body of research during the past decade (e.g., Buss et al., 1992, Buss et al., 1999, Buunk et al., 1996, DeSteno et al., 2002, DeSteno & Salovey, 1996, Geary et al., 1995, Grice & Seely, 2000, Harris, 2000, Harris, 2002, Harris & Christenfeld, 1996, Pietrzak et al., 2002, Sagarin et al., 2003, Wiederman & Allgeier, 1993, Wiederman & Kendall, 1999). This research has been primarily devoted to testing the hypothesis that the female JM responds with stronger emotions to a mate's emotional infidelity, whereas the male JM generates stronger emotions in response to a mate's sexual infidelity (see Harris, 2003, for a critical review). The most widespread measure used in this research consists of a forced-choice method: The participants are asked to indicate which form of a mate's imagined infidelity would distress or upset them more. In her meta-analysis on the results from the forced-choice measure, Harris (2003) concluded that “there does appear to be a sex difference … with heterosexual samples. This effect, however, is greatly reduced in samples that are older than the typical college age” (p. 105; but see Hofhansl, Vitouch, & Voracek, 2004, for a more recent and complete meta-analysis that supports the evolutionary view). In contrast, other self-report measures failed to clearly demonstrate a sex difference in the content specificity of the JM. In addition, physiological measures as indicators of the strength of the emotional responses to a partner's imagined sexual versus emotional infidelity yielded mixed results. Whereas Buss et al. (1992, Study 2) as well as Pietrzak et al. (2002) found results consistent with the evolutionary view, Grice and Seely (2000) and Harris (2000) failed to replicate these findings.

The present research focuses on the processing of input to the JM. More precisely, our aim is to test the assumption derived from the evolutionary view of jealousy, that the JM is a domain-, content-, and sex-specific information-processing device. The main prediction was that both men and women preferentially process cues to the adaptively primary infidelity type (female sexual and male emotional infidelity, respectively). This sex difference should be especially prominent in the context of one's own, but not in a third person's romantic relationship, because the former context is personally more threatening than the latter and thus more likely to fully activate the JM. Schützwohl, 2004a, Schützwohl, 2004b reported sex-specific differences in the processing of information about a mate's sexual and emotional infidelity. Men and women preferentially actively searched for information and were preoccupied with thoughts about the adaptively primary infidelity type (Schützwohl, 2004a). Moreover, given ambiguous cues to infidelity, women and men tended to differentially infer the adaptively primary infidelity type (Schützwohl, 2004b). Finally, women and men more rapidly processed cues to the adaptively primary than the adaptively secondary infidelity type (Schützwohl, 2004b). The present study extends this research in two respects. First, the recall of cues to sexual and emotional infidelity is a new indicator of the sex-specific preferential processing of cues to the adaptively primary infidelity type. A second new element of the present study is the comparison of the processing of cues to sexual and emotional infidelity in personally more and less threatening contexts.

To test the prediction that the JM is a domain-, content-, and sex-specific information-processing device with respect to the recall of cues to infidelity, participants listened to a single story that included five cues more diagnostic of sexual and five cues more diagnostic of emotional infidelity as identified by Shackelford and Buss (1997) (see also Schützwohl, 2004b). The personal threat value of the story was varied by presenting the story under one of two context conditions. In the more threatening context condition, the story dealt with the participants' own romantic relationship. Thus, the 10 cues referred to the infidelity of one's own mate. In contrast, in the personally less threatening context condition, the same story referred to an anonymous couple and the same cues to infidelity were thus evidenced by an anonymous member of the opposite sex. One week later, the participants were unexpectedly asked to recall the story.

Section snippets

Apparatus

The presentation of the stories was controlled by an IBM-compatible microcomputer. The stories were recorded on audio CDs and presented via headphones.

Materials

Initial written instructions informed the participants that the experiment consisted of two related sessions separated by 1 week. They were told that they would first have to listen to a story about a couple, which would be followed by a questionnaire. The imaginary story was about a couple spending an evening together. The frame of the story was

Results

Recall protocols were scored for the recall of cues to sexual and emotional infidelity and the 19 neutral sentences. A cue to infidelity or a neutral sentence was classified as having been recalled if its semantic content was unambiguously reproduced. One rater who was naı̈ve with respect to the experiment and the hypotheses and the second author classified all recall protocols. The two raters agreed in 97% of their classifications. The following analyses are based on the classifications of the

Discussion

The present results support the view that the JM is a domain-, content-, and sex-specific information-processing device. Men and women preferentially recalled the cues to the adaptively primary infidelity type and this preference appeared as a trend in the personally less threatening condition and was statistically significant in the personally more threatening condition.

Men's preferential recall of cues to sexual infidelity in the personally more threatening context condition is obviously

Acknowledgements

This research has been supported by a grant from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG Schu 1559/1-1). We thank Kirsten Borgstedt for her insightful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of the manuscript. Lily-Maria Silny considerably improved the language of the manuscript.

References (23)

  • B.P Buunk et al.

    Sex differences in jealousy in evolutionary and cultural perspective. Tests from the Netherlands, Germany, and the United States

    Psychological Science

    (1996)
  • Cited by (77)

    • Sex (similarities and) differences in friendship jealousy

      2022, Evolution and Human Behavior
      Citation Excerpt :

      Whereas Krems et al. (2021) found no consistent differences in friendship jealousy in response to hypothetical scenarios versus recalled real-world events, future work would benefit from using multiple methods to explore sex differences in friendship jealousy. For example, researchers have employed physiological measures (e.g., electrodermal activity, diastolic blood pressure) and memory-recall paradigms (Pietrzak, Laird, Stevens, & Thompson, 2002; Schützwohl & Koch, 2004; Takahashi et al., 2006) to assess predicted sex differences in romantic jealousy (Buss et al., 1999; Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992; Symons, 1979; Wiederman & Allgeier, 1993). Scholars could take advantage of the great attention paid to jealousy in romantic relationships, using existing work on romantic relationships as a guide for future work on friendship.

    • Culture and gender differences in romantic jealousy

      2015, Personality and Individual Differences
      Citation Excerpt :

      Subsequent studies found that the sexual dimorphism in emotional reactivity to jealousy was not confounded by cultural differences (Buunk, Angleitner, Oubaid, & Buss, 1996). In addition to psychological distress, past research has also provided evidence for gender differences by examining sexual versus emotional determinants of jealousy (Buss et al., 1999; Buunk et al., 1996; Strout, Laird, Shafer, & Thompson, 2005), through the likelihood of terminating relationships after an infidelity (Shackelford, Buss, & Bennett, 2002), memory recall (Schutzwohl & Koch, 2004), cognitive preoccupations in response to sexual and emotional cues (Schutzwohl, 2006), and different patterns of brain activation during fMRI imagery of either a sexual or emotional infidelity (Takahashi et al., 2006). However, there are many studies that have found conflicting results regarding specific gender differences in ratings of distress when approached with a sexual versus emotional infidelity scenario (Sagarin et al., 2012).

    • The evolutionary psychology of human mating: A response to Buller's critique

      2014, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C :Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text